I love how there's always a troll who will give a city like Chicago or New York a "3 or less rating" :lol:
What people don't realize is that both of these cities have more great architecture than you can see in a "skyline shot". Also, they're both cities whose skylines have been growing for over 120 years!
You see "boxes" because the age of the supertall skyscraper in the U.S. was the late '60s, early '70s, when boxes prevailed and Sears, Aon, Hancock, and the WTC were all built. There's more than enough interesting architecture in Chicago. There are old buildings along the Michigan Avenue wall by guys like Louis Sullivan. Hell, he created the Chicago School of Architecture- not an actual school, but a design style which, to an extent, still dominates what our idea of what a skyscraper is today. Chicago has one of the most extensive collections of buildings by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe anywhere (although if you hate boxes you wouldn't like his work). And it has more than its share of great post-modern architecture (the Thompson Center and Sofitel Hotel being two of my personal favorites).
You also have to build skyscrapers that don't clash with the city. If the Tapei Financial Center was built in Chicago, it would make Chicagoans vomit. And there are certain styles that work in tropical environments that wouldn't work in a Northern climate.
I'm always surprised, as well, by the extent to which people are impressed with gaudy neon lights. It's seems like you could put neon pink/green/blue/red/yellow/orange/purple lights all over the skyline of Tulsa, OK, and people here would love it.
Only time will tell if the "cool looking" buildings going up in Asian cities will be considered great or even decent architecture in 50 years time. I'm inclined to believe that most of them won't be.